Introduction

2 Enoch is a Jewish pseudepigraphon preserved solely in the
Slavonic language. The central theme of the text is the celestial ascent of the
seventh antediluvian patriarch Enoch through the heavens, his luminous
metamorphosis near the Throne of Glory, and his initiation into the heavenly
mysteries.

Structure
The book, which combines the features of an apocalypse and a testament, can be
divided into three parts. The first part (chapters 1–38) describes Enoch’s
heavenly journey that culminates in his encounter with the Deity revealing to
the seer the secrets of creation. After the encounter Enoch returns to earth to
instruct his children in the celestial knowledge received from God and the
angels. The second part (chapters 39–67) begins with Enoch’s testamentary
admonitions to his sons during his short visit to earth and ends with the second
ascension of the patriarch. The third part of the book (chapters 68–73)
describes the priestly functions of Enoch’s family and the miraculous birth of
Melchisedek, and ends with the Flood.

Manuscripts and Recensions2 Enoch has survived in more than twenty Slavonic manuscripts and
fragments dated from 14th to 18th centuries C.E. These Slavonic materials did
not circulate independently but were included into collections that often
rearranged, abbreviated, or expanded them. Typically, Jewish pseudepigraphical
texts in Slavic mileux were transmitted as part of larger historiographical,
moral, and liturgical codexes and compendiums where ideologically marginal and
mainstream materials were mixed with each other. Only a small number of the
manuscripts, namely A (0:1–72:10), U (0:1–72:10), B (0:1–72:10), and R
(0:1–73:9), give a full account of the story leading up to the Flood. Manuscript
J (0:1–71:4) goes to chapter 71. Manuscripts P (0:1–68:7), N (0:1–67:3), V
(1:1–67:3), and B2 (1:1–67:3) contain only the first two parts of the book and
end with Enoch’s second ascension. Manuscript L (0:1–33:8) goes to chapter 33.
The rest of the manuscripts give only fragments of the different parts of the
book: P2 (28:1–32:2), Tr (67:1; 70–72), Syn (71;72), Rum (71:1–73:1), G (65:1–4;
65:6–8), Chr (fragments from 11–58), Chr2 (11:1–15:3), K (71:1–72:10), I
(70:22–72:9). A large group of the manuscripts (MPr, TSS 253, TSS 489, TSS 682)
are copies of the compilation of rearranged materials from chs. 40–65 of 2 Enoch
from a judicial codex “The Just Balance” ("Merilo Pravednoe").
Scholarly consensus holds that 2 Enoch exists in longer and shorter
recensions, although some scholars proposed the existence of three or even four
recensions (Andersen, 1983). The longer and shorter recensions of 2 Enoch
differ not only in length but also in the character of the text, and both of
them preserve original material. MSS R, J, and P are the manuscripts of the
longer recension. MSS U, A, B, V, N, B2, and L represent the manuscripts of the
shorter recension. P2, Tr, Syn, Rum, MPr, TSS 253, TSS 489, TSS 682, G, Chr,
Chr2, I, and K represent fragments of the longer or shorter recensions. Although
several stemmas of the relationships between the manuscripts were offered, they
can be considered only as provisional until the critical editions of the major
manuscripts become available (Andersen, 1983).

Original Language
Most scholars believe that the Slavonic version was translated from Greek, since
the text attests to some traditions that make sense only in the Greek language,
for example a tradition found in 2 Enoch 30 that derives Adam’s name from
the Greek designations of the four corners of the earth. The Semitisms, such as
the words Ophanim, Raqia Arabot, and others found in various parts
of the text, point to the possibility of the Semitic Vorlage behind the
Greek version. Nevertheless, some scholars warn that the Semitisms might be “due
to the cultivation of a biblical style in the Greek original” (Andersen, 1983).
The hypothesis about the possibility of direct translation from Hebrew into
Slavonic was also proposed (Mescherskij, 1965). Yet this suggestion met strong
criticism from experts who “find it thoroughly unlikely that translations from
Hebrew into any sort of written Slavic were made in any region of Slavdom before
the middle of the fifteenth century” (Lunt/Taube, 1988).

Date
The date of the text can be deduced solely on the basis of the internal evidence
since the book has survived only in the medieval manuscripts. It is noteworthy
that the overwhelming majority of the crucial arguments for the early dating of
the text have been linked to the themes of the Jerusalem Temple and its ongoing
practices and customs. The vast majority of scholarly efforts have been in this
respect directed toward finding possible hints that might indicate that the
Sanctuary was still standing when the original text was composed. These
discussions are not new, since already in his first systematic exploration of
the text published in 1896, R. H. Charles used references to the Temple
practices found in the Slavonic apocalypse as main proofs for his hypothesis of
the early date of the apocalypse which he placed in the first century C.E.
before the destruction of the Second Temple (Charles/Morfill, 1896).
Charles and scholars after him noted that the text gives no indication that the
catastrophe of the destruction of the Temple had already occurred at the time of
the book’s composition. Critical readers of the pseudepigraphon would have some
difficulties finding any explicit expression of feelings of sadness or mourning
about the loss of the sanctuary.
Affirmations of the value of animal sacrifice and Enoch’s halakhic instructions
found in 2 Enoch 59 also appear to be fashioned not in the “preservationist,”
mishnaic-like mode but rather as if they reflected sacrificial practices that
still existed when the author was writing his book. There is also an intensive
and consistent effort on the part of the author to legitimize the central place
of worship, which through the reference to the place Akhuzan—a cryptic name for
the temple mountain in Jerusalem—is explicitly connected in 2 Enoch with
the Jerusalem Temple. Scholars have also previously noted in the text some
indications of the ongoing practice of pilgrimage to the central place of
worship. These indications could be expected in a text written in the
Alexandrian Diaspora. Thus in his instructions to the children, Enoch repeatedly
encourages them to bring the gifts before the face of God for the remission of
sins, a practice which appears to recall well-known sacrificial customs
widespread in the Second Temple period (Böttrich, 1992). Further, the Slavonic
apocalypse also contains a direct command to visit the Temple three times a day,
an advice that would be difficult to fulfill if the sanctuary had been already
destroyed.

Authorship
Although several hypotheses about Christian authorship of the book were
proposed, none of them was able to withstand scholarly criticism. Besides the
early hypothesis about the Bogomil provenance of the work (Maunder, 1918) that
was met with skepticism, the most consistent effort of justifying the Christian
provenance of the work was offered by the French Slavist André Vaillant (Vaillant,
1952). His position was later supported by Josef Milik who argued that the
apocalypse was written by a Byzantine monk in the ninth century C.E. (Milik,
1976). Both Vaillant’s and Milik’s positions generated substantial critical
responses since the vast majority of readers of 2 Enoch had been arguing for the
Jewish provenance of the original core of the text.

Geographical Provenance
Since the pioneering work of R. H. Charles the hypothesis about the Alexandrian
provenance of the apocalypse has dominated the landscape of scholarly
discussion. Charles proposed that the apocalypse was written by a Hellenized Jew
in Alexandria. The text appears to attest to some themes that were distinctive
of the Alexandrian environment. One such cluster of motifs deals with the Adamic
tradition that is salient in the Slavonic apocalypse. Thus in 2 Enoch
30:13 the Lord tells Enoch that he created Adam out of the seven components and
assigned to Adam a name from the four components: from East – (A), from West –
(D), from North – (A), and from South – (M). The early testimony to this
tradition about the anagram of Adam’s name can be found in the third book of
Sibylline Oracles, a composition probably written in Egypt around 160–50 B.C.E.
Another reference also comes from the Egyptian milieu and is found in the
writings of the Hermetic author Zosimos of Panopolis who lived in Alexandria in
the late third or early fourth century C.E. (Böttrich, 1995).
Some other Adamic motifs found in 2 Enoch, such as the tradition about
Adam’s role as the governor of the earth, also seems to stem from Alexandrian
milieu, exhibiting similarities to the developments found in Philo (Opif. 88;
148).
The description of phoenixes and chalkydras, the mythical creatures whom Enoch
encounters during his celestial tour, might also point to Egypt. Already Charles
was arguing about the Egyptian provenance of this imagery (Charles/Morfill,
1896). Van den Broek’s study of the phoenix traditions confirms Charles’
hypothesis, proposing that the symbolism found in the Slavonic apocalypse stems
from the Egyptian syncretism of Roman times (Van den Broek, 1972).

Theology
The theological universe of the Slavonic apocalypse is deeply rooted in the
Enochic mold of the Jewish apocalypticism of the Second Temple period. Yet along
with appropriations of ancient traditions about the seventh antediluvian hero,
the text attempts to reshape them by adding a new mystical dimension to the
familiar apocalyptic imagery. The figure of Enoch portrayed in the various
sections of 2 Enoch appears to be more elaborate than in the early Second
Temple Enochic tractates of 1 Enoch. For the first time, the Enochic
tradition seeks to depict Enoch, not simply as a human taken to heaven and
transformed into an angel, but as a celestial being exalted above the angelic
world (Orlov, 2005). In this attempt, one may find the origins of another image
of Enoch, very different from the early Enochic literature, that was developed
much later in rabbinic Merkabah and Hekhalot mysticism–the image of the supreme
angel Metatron, “the Prince of the Presence.” The titles of the patriarch found
in the Slavonic apocalypse appear to be different from those attested in early
Enochic writings and demonstrate a close resemblance to the titles of Metatron
as they appear in some Hekhalot sources (Odeberg, 1928). These developments
demonstrate that 2 Enoch represents a bridge between the early
apocalyptic Enochic accounts and the later mystical rabbinic and Hekhalot
traditions.